The Right To Be Fat: Pushing Back Against Government Overreach

Matthew Lau
August 7, 2020
Would beloved comic actor John Candy have lived longer if government forced him to eat less? What about Orson Welles? Or Luciano Pavarotti? Perhaps. Would they have been happier or more successful? We’ll never know the answer to the first, and as to the second, almost certainly not. Candy built his career around a lovable portliness, Welles often played menacing fat men and Pavarotti’s girth helped him belt out arias. A few extra pounds, in other words, offers both advantages and disadvantages − and it should be up to the individual to decide how to balance the scales. As governments ramp up policies designed to put their citizenry on a diet, Matthew Lau sallies forth in defence of eating what you want, and exercising only when you feel the need.

The Right To Be Fat: Pushing Back Against Government Overreach

Matthew Lau
August 7, 2020
Would beloved comic actor John Candy have lived longer if government forced him to eat less? What about Orson Welles? Or Luciano Pavarotti? Perhaps. Would they have been happier or more successful? We’ll never know the answer to the first, and as to the second, almost certainly not. Candy built his career around a lovable portliness, Welles often played menacing fat men and Pavarotti’s girth helped him belt out arias. A few extra pounds, in other words, offers both advantages and disadvantages − and it should be up to the individual to decide how to balance the scales. As governments ramp up policies designed to put their citizenry on a diet, Matthew Lau sallies forth in defence of eating what you want, and exercising only when you feel the need.
Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter

Dissatisfied with merely being Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson recently appointed himself nanny to its 67 million residents as well. His goal: to make sure everyone is eating right. While Britain’s most famous nanny, Mary Poppins, once advised her charges that “a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down,” Nanny Boris apparently intends to forbid such indulgences in the least delightful way. 

Last month, his Conservative government announced a raft of new food regulations and restrictions. These go well beyond the usual and familiar “advice” and urgings from government, the news media, public health officials and schoolteachers. Johnson’s measures prohibit junk food ads on TV before 9 pm, ban “buy one get one free” deals on unhealthy food, require new calorie-counts on restaurant menus, and add rules on where certain food products can be displayed in shops. This regulatory effort is intended to reduce obesity.

Once a frequent critic of government overreach, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has transformed himself into an enthusiastic Nanny Statist with recent food regulations and restrictions.
No spoonful of sugar: Once a frequent critic of government overreach, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has transformed himself into an enthusiastic Nanny Statist with recent food regulations and restrictions.

The former London mayor attributed the program’s genesis to the effects of the Covid pandemic – including his own experience. “I was too fat,” confessed Johnson, who caught the virus and spent time in an ICU. Once a frequent and vociferous critic of the nanny state, he instead promised that, “We want [these measures] to be really sympathetic to people, to understand the difficulties that people face with their weight, the struggles that many, many people face to lose weight, and just to be helpful.” The British press quickly weighed in with stories featuring profiles of chronically obese Britons who fretted that the PM’s program goes too far, not far enough, or fails to tackle the problem at its source – overweight kids.

Few governments can resist the temptation to control the public diet: British Columbia recently removed a sales tax exemption on soda to fight obesity.

Whether Johnson’s campaign will make people slimmer is yet to be seen. It will certainly make government fatter and more controlling. The Canadian nanny state has similarly grown plump in recent years, as the temptation among politicians to exercise ever-greater control over the lives of citizens appears irresistible. Earlier this year, for example, British Columbia announced that its sales tax exemption on food would no longer apply to sweetened carbonated beverages, even those that have no sugar. It is a soda tax in disguise, and a paternalistic effort to control what beverages people choose to drink.

In Ontario, the previous Liberal government was also an eager adopter of food rules meant to exert government control over the public diet. Two examples: a requirement that restaurant chains with 20 or more locations must post calorie counts on their menus, and a ban on French fries in high school cafeterias. Thankfully, current Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford appears far less interested in scolding folks for the occasional indulgence. Quite the opposite. In May, he suggested people spend their pandemic self-isolation time baking cheesecakes. He even released an instructional video for his family’s cherry cheesecake recipe, which requires a cup of sugar, a cup of icing sugar, a half brick of butter, and one-and-a-half pounds of cream cheese.

The hefty premier’s proclaimed preference for high-fat desserts is no match, however, for the unquenchable nanny instincts of governments and public intellectuals around the world. The Commonwealth Fund, a health care think-tank in New York, calls obesity a “public health crisis.” The World Health Organization coined the term “globesity” to refer to an “escalating global epidemic” of obesity. Even Pope Francis weighed in last year to lament that food is “consumed in excess” in much of the developed world. Indeed, statistics show that 60 per cent of the population of member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are overweight.

Despite recent trends of diet controlling government overreach, Premier Doug Ford offered a rare acknowledgement of the value of high-fat comfort food.
Dig in: Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s cherry cheesecake recipe is a rare political acknowledgement of the value of high-fat comfort food.

For the purpose of this discussion, let’s accept a recent OECD report – based on Body Mass Index (BMI) data − that in its 36 member countries average life expectancy is 2.7 years shorter as a result of people being overweight or obese. In addition to shorter life expectancies, obesity is also blamed for higher levels of unemployment and absenteeism, lower worker productivity, earlier retirement, and higher health care costs, all of which lead to slower economic growth. Based on its modelling work, the OECD puts the total economic damage caused by overweightedness at 3.3 percent of GDP across the entire OECD.

A recent OECD report claims the total economic damage caused by being overweight or obese amounts to 3.3 percent of GDP in member countries.

Such a sizeable cost might suggest nanny state efforts to tax, nudge, regulate, subsidize, re-educate, or otherwise encourage citizens to improve their diets are justified. But is it really the proper role of governments to forcibly maximize citizens’ life expectancy or their lifetime earnings? Of course not. The only thing a government should care about maximizing when it comes to citizens’ personal lives is their own, entirely subjective, sense of well-being. And while there may be certain costs to obesity, there are also compensating benefits. 

It is entirely possible that some (perhaps most) people have decided the costs of obesity are exceeded by its benefits. These include the enjoyment of more food, the reduced stress of not feeling hungry all the time or worrying about the composition and calorie-count of every potential snack or meal, and living a life unencumbered by government oversight or rigorous physical activity. 

Society might even be better off with more obesity rather than less. Consider a recent study from the National Bureau of Economic Research into the effects of an Obamacare mandate in 2010 that required U.S. chain restaurants to post calorie counts on their menus, similar to that enacted in Ontario. “We find that calorie mandates lead to a small but statistically significant reduction in average BMI,” the report concludes. Yet among the report’s conclusions was that “the presence of calorie labeling mandates leads to a reduction in self-reported life satisfaction.” The researchers concluded that the mandatory calorie counts made some consumers worse off by “inflicting a welfare-reducing moral cost on unhealthy eating” and caused them to “suffer psychological costs.” Eating unhealthy food makes people happy; shaming people into eating healthier makes them unhappy.

Of course, this does not make menu calorie labels an inherently bad idea. Many consumers like such information to help them decide where and what to eat. The study does, however, furnish evidence that government-mandated menu calorie labels are a bad idea. Since the restaurant and fast-food industry is highly competitive, it is in an establishment’s self-interest to provide labels to the extent it perceives such a preference among its clientele. Other restaurants might have a less health-conscious clientele that doesn’t want to be shamed for consuming lots of calories. The likely outcome in a nanny-free environment is that some restaurants would have the calorie labels, and some wouldn’t, depending on what their customers wanted.

Moreover, the extent to which all these studies, claims, and warnings about obesity should even be considered alarming is unclear. Peer-reviewed evidence in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggests that people who are overweight, or only slightly obese, actually enjoy a longer average lifespan than those with supposedly normal body weight. This is known as the “obesity paradox” and may be due to the protective aspects of a modest amount of body fat or some other medical or psychological phenomenon. 

Hockey star Sidney Crosby and movie actors Dwayne ‘the Rock’ Johnson and Daniel Craig (left to right) all exceed normal weight guidelines based on their Body Mass Index measurements. (Sidney Crosby picture by Michael Miller.) Need they respond to the government overreach dietary requirements?
"Do I look fat to you?" Hockey star Sidney Crosby and movie actors Dwayne ‘the Rock’ Johnson and Daniel Craig (left to right) all exceed normal weight guidelines based on their Body Mass Index measurements. (Sidney Crosby picture by Michael Miller.)

Further, the universal use of BMI to identify ostensibly normal weight, overweight or obesity remains controversial within the medical community. BMI, which is based on height to weight ratios, has grown notorious for categorizing stocky or well-muscled professional athletes and movie stars as being overweight, or worse. (This list includes hockey star Sidney Crosby, James Bond actor Daniel Craig, and action movie icon Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson.) As such, it should be considered a very imprecise measurement. Research published this month in the Canadian Medical Association Journal states that BMI is “not an accurate tool” for identifying obesity-related complications, and recommends it be replaced with a much more holistic approach to body weight and health. 

The larger point is that there is no clear reason why the government should interfere with the private decisions of anyone who judges the benefits of food enjoyment and a sedentary lifestyle to be worth the costs of adding a few pounds. After all, the government does not and should not stop somebody from buying, say, a new bicycle on the basis that the government judges the value of it to be less than the price paid by the buyer.

In the case of buying bicycles, it is correctly assumed that the individual buying the bicycle, not the government, has better information and better incentives to weigh the benefits of the bicycle (by how much it will improve his or her standard of living) against the cost and come to the appropriate decision to make the purchase or not. If the result of millions of individuals making their own decisions is that 30 per cent of the population have a bicycle, we would reasonably conclude that for 30 per cent of the population, the benefits of owning a bicycle are greater than the costs. If the government tried to drive the number up to 40 per cent, or cut it to 20 per cent, through taxes, nudges, or regulations, the result would be to make society worse off. 

I’m lovin’ it, so back off: How much and what we eat are intensely personal decisions in which governments should play no role.

There is no difference in principle between this decision-making process and an individual’s decisions concerning what, when, and how much to eat. Both these areas, and many more besides, should be left up to the individual exercising personal judgment. Indeed, Britain’s prime minister was free to decide that getting himself through the immense pressures of his job might be ameliorated at least somewhat by eating what he wanted, when he wanted. And while Johnson gained weight as a result, he then decided it was important to slim down and, by exercising vigorously, he has begun to shed that weight. Note that he did so without the necessity of the very regulations he now wishes to impose on his fellow citizens. Sadly, Johnson seems to have lost sight of the role of personal motivation and decision-making in his own story.

Better than the alternative: Worries about high obesity rates today overlook the fact that for most of human history, famine and starvation were far more pressing concerns.

We should also note an important fact – one so obvious that it should hardly need stating, but is nevertheless often ignored – that today’s high obesity rates are the result of more than two centuries of astonishing economic progress. For most of human history the masses toiled for long hours doing backbreaking manual labour to try to produce enough food to avoid starvation. And in many instances, they failed, catastrophically. Famines killing millions at a time were common right into the middle of the 20th century, though, thankfully, starvation has become less common as developing countries move up the economic ladder.

Rather than being a social crisis for governments to solve, obesity might rather be seen as an incidental result of the freedom and prosperity that have given people the option to enjoy a sedentary lifestyle and consume food as they wish. Such freely-made choices are not for the government to overrule. The effect of regulations and restrictions on the advertisement and sale of unhealthy food is to prevent businesses from delivering what consumers demand. Instead, in a nanny state, businesses are forced to deliver what politicians say consumers ought to demand. This is not how the economy, or society, should function.

Let people be overweight if they want to be. Where politicians should really be cutting fat is on the government rule books. 

Matthew Lau is a Toronto writer.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Thirteen Things That Can’t Be Said About Aboriginal Law And Policy In Canada

How do you make new laws and policies or reform old ones in a democracy? You talk openly about every aspect, carefully consider the pros and cons and the long-term implications, and strive to come up with solutions that are fair to everyone. That has been the ideal, anyway, in Canada since Confederation. So what happens when vast areas of law and policy cannot even be discussed any longer? Bruce Pardy lists the things that have become perilous to say regarding Indigenous issues – but that need to be said if Canada is to maintain a legal system that is fair to all Canadians.

Democratic socialism is the new communism, but what does that mean for the people old enough to remember living under communism?

New Communism, Old Fears

Supporting or working to bring about “democratic” socialism has become an alluring option for ever-more voters across North America. It is ascending on clouds of virtuous intentions, high hopes and utopian goals, backed by elaborate theories, with good doses of anger and envy adding punch. Yet it has all been tried before – and failed calamitously, an unmitigated horror ending in ruination. Luckily, people who have personally lived through it are still around to tell the tale. Through the eyes of one survivor of Eastern European communism, Doug Firby issues a stark reminder of what real oppression looks like and a plea to younger Canadians to resist the seductive call of socialism.

What would have happened if Canada rejected "coronapsychosis"?

Rejecting “Coronapsychosis” Could Be Good for Our Health

It will remain forever unknowable how Canada would have fared had our country not largely aped the “lockdown” model adopted by most of the advanced countries. But there is meaningful evidence for those who care and dare to look – and the implications aren’t pretty for our public health officials and their political acolytes. Brian Giesbrecht examined an obscure, far-off country run by an eccentric old man who decided to do the pandemic his own way – and may well have saved not only his nation’s economy but hundreds of his compatriots as well.

More from this author

When the Bill Comes Due, Part II

Government deficits are soaring, the economy is reeling and the restart is slow and halting. Nobody knows what lies ahead. How the federal Liberals plan to handle Canada’s tectonic shift in public debt is anybody’s guess. In Part I of this two-part report, Matthew Lau described the challenge our country faces and evaluated two of the most destructive options for dealing with the Covid-debt. In Part II, Lau sets out what would happen if Ottawa decides to engineer a return of high inflation, and then explores more practical options for addressing our enormous post-pandemic indebtedness – including the one method that has worked decisively at the federal and provincial levels.

When the Bill Comes Due, Part I

In many ways these are magical times. Governments seemingly exist to protect us from all harm and negative consequences. When a pandemic hits, the existing gusher of public spending becomes an unchecked torrent, interest rates are lowered to effectively zero, yet inflation remains caged. Almost any item large or small can be purchased with instant credit on easy terms. Individuals, organizations and groups in trouble are showered with financial beneficence. But where is the money actually coming from? Who, if anyone, is to pay for it all? Can nothing bad come of the unprecedented profligacy? Matthew Lau reminds us that reality will reassert itself and when the spell is broken at last, potentially ruinous consequences lie in wait. Lau evaluates the options available to debt-burdened governments – most of them bad. Part I of a two-part analysis.

Down to Business: How Canada Will Recover from the Covid Recession

Clear skies in once-smoggy L.A. Wildlife wandering through cities and bedding down in parks. Deserted streets. Idled factories. For the left, the pandemic has created a convenient waypoint on their path to utopia. To the rest of us, it has furnished a nightmarish vision of a potentially destitute future, and a wakeup call to focus on what it might take to revive our economy. For Matthew Lau, the choice is clear. And while news media reports continue to promote fanciful progressive agendas, Lau sees encouraging signs that the imperatives of survival will enable practicality and common sense to prevail.

Share This Story

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.